References
- ALEXY, R. (1989): Teoría de la Argumentación Jurídica [Theory of legal argumentation], translated by Manuel Atienza and Isabel Espejo. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.
- ALEXY, R. (1999): The special case thesis. In: Ratio Juris. An international journal of jurisprudence and philosophy of law, 12(4), pp. 374–384.
- ALEXY, R. (2014): Constitutional rights and proportionality. In: Revus: journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law, 22, pp. 51–65.
- ÁLVAREZ, S. (2008): Pluralismo Moral y Conflictos de Derechos Fundamentales [Moral pluralism and conflicts of fundamental rights]. In: Doxa. Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, 31, pp. 21–54.
- APEL, K. O. (1991): Teoría de la verdad y ética del discurso [Theory of truth and discourse ethics], translated by Norberto Smilg, Introduction by Adela Cortina. Barcelona: Paidós.
- ATIENZA, M. (2017): Las razones del Derecho. Teorías de la Argumentación Jurídica [The reasons of law. Theories of legal argumentation] Lima: Palestra.
- BESSON, S. (2005): The morality of conflict: Reasonable disagreement and the law. Oxford: Hart publishing.
- CHANG, R. (1998): Incommensurability, incomparability, and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- ELSTER, J. (1998): Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- FETERIS, E. (2003): The Rationality of Legal Discourse in Habermas’s Discourse Theory. In: Informal Logic, 23(2), pp. 139–159.
- FETERIS, E. (2017): Fundamentals of legal argumentation: A survey of theories on justification of judicial decisions. Dordrecht: Springer.
- FORST, R. (2011): The right to justification: Elements of a constructivist theory of justice, translated by Jeffrey Flynn. New York: Columbia University Press.
- GUTMANN, A. & THOMPSON, D. (2004): Why deliberative democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- HABERMAS, J. (2000): Aclaraciones a la ética del discurso [Clarifications to Discourse Ethics], translated by Manuel Jiménez Redondo. Barcelona: Trotta.
- JOHNSTON, J. S. (2016): Is there a need for transcendental arguments in discourse ethics? In: Educational Theory, 66(6), pp. 719–734.
- KÖLBEL, M. (2004): Faultless disagreement. In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian society, 104(1), pp. 53–73.
- LARIGUET, G. (2008): Dilemas y conflictos trágicos. Una investigación conceptual [Tragic Conflicts and Dilemmas: A Conceptual Enquiry]. Lima: Palestra.
- LARIGUET, G. (2011a): ¡Las normas deben ser acordadas por todos los afectados! Una crítica a la ética del discurso [Norms have to be agreed by all the affected! A critique of the discourse ethics]. In: Universitas. Revista de Filosofía, Derecho, Política, 14(7), pp. 75–89.
- LARIGUET, G. (2011b): Encrucijadas Morales. Una aproximación a los dilemas y su impacto en el razonamiento práctico [Moral crossroads: An approach to dilemmas and their impact on practical reasoning], Prologue by René González de la Vega. Madrid: Plaza y Valdés.
- MALIANDI, R. (2010): Discurso y Convergencia. La ética discursiva de Karl-Otto Apel y el laberinto de los conflictos [Discourse and Convergence: The discourse ethics of Karl-Otto Apel and the labyrinths of conflicts]. Buenos Aires: Oinos.
- MARTÍ, J. L. (2006): La República Deliberativa. Una teoría de la democracia [The Deliberative Republic: A Theory of Democracy]. Madrid: Marcial Pons.
- WALDRON, J. (1999): Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- WOJCIECHOWSKI, B. (2010): Discourse ethics as a basis of application of law. In: J. Jemielniak & P. Micklaszewicz (eds.): Interpretation of law in the global world: From particularism to a universal Approach. New York: Springer, pp. 53–69.
- WOLF, S. (1992): Two levels of pluralism. In: Ethics, 102(4), pp. 785–798.